Anyone know about the magazine: The Economist ?

[onlyadream]

I'm selecting *free* magazines and am considering The Economist, but I'd like to know if they tilt right/left or are in the middle. Anyone know?

I went to their website and can't tell (right off the bat). thanks.

[aikoaiko]

1. Mostly Center (sometimes left and sometimes right) -- good writing.

[MadHound]

2. Sometimes they tilt towards the right,

But overall I think that they tilt towards common sense and intelligence:shrug:

However some of their articles and writers are deathly boring. They are probably the best business magazine going since Murdoch took over the WSJ and Baron's.

[Fleshdancer]

3. I like The Economist

The feature stories are always comprehensive and facinating.

[Lost in CT]

4. Best news magazine out there esp for foreign coverage.

And kinda pricey so definitely worth picking up for free.

[burythehatchet]

5. As a hard core liberal The Economist is the only business type mag I will read.

[indepat]

12. And you get global news and tons of global data w/o the USA RW talking points

:D

[burythehatchet]

13. That's right, their US news section is far superior to any Time or Newsweak pap

[indepat]

32. Like it's far superior by far

:D

[fed_up_mother]

6. Their podcasts are sometimes interesting....and free.

Very center-ish in a European sort of way. I like them.

[distantearlywarning]

7. Kind of center-right.

But very intellectual. Much more economically right than socially right, and they make an attempt to take a neutral tone in articles, which is more than you can say for most media outlets these days. They were very critical of the Bush administration about a number of issues, and publicly endorsed Obama last year.

I actually really like the Economist, although I suspect it might be a little right-leaning for some people on DU.

[ThomWV]

8. You can expect articles in it to be factually accurate - and that's the best you can hope for.

Really, if they give accurate information, then don't worry too much about and sort of tilt they may have. If you're smart enough to read it in the first place you'll come to your own conclusions and if their analysis contradicts your own, then so much the better. Working minds get stronger.

Hail to the Chief

[truebrit71]

9. Much to "free-market rules" for me...I stopped mine after they excused Abu Ghraib as "pranks"...

...when I first started reading it they seemed to be okay, but as the election got closer last year they got more and more right-wing...

Far too much "free market capitalism RULES!!" for me...

[ramapo]

11. So right-wing that they endorsed Obama n/t

[truebrit71]

23. The ARTICLES got more and more right-wing...don't care what the editorial board said..

...Sort of like the Chicago Tribune...they endorsed Obama but that doesn't make it any less a right-wing rag...

[Nye Bevan]

20. They were among the first to call for Rumsfeld to resign in the wake of Abu Ghraib

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_NGQSQJP

One answer is exactly what George Bush has done in response to revelations of torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail (see article): to make it clear, in public, that you find such action abhorrent and unacceptable, and that the perpetrators of it will be punished. That has also been the approach of the British government in response to the publication of photographs that may well be fakes but that could nevertheless indicate that genuine abuses have taken place...

I wouldn't call that "excusing" Abu Ghraib.

[truebrit71]

22. There were several articles written that said the opposite of what you posted...

..One on particular that parrotted the RW talking point that they were nothing worse than "high-jinks" and "pranks"...

[Nye Bevan]

25. I think you may be mistaken

I seem to remember that the Economist always took Abu Ghraib very seriously.

Do you have any links to these several articles?

[truebrit71]

34. I am not mistaken...hence the cancellation of my subscription...

...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Yes, they do this horrific thing called "allowing different points of view" in their editorials.

Scandalous, I tell you.

[truebrit71]

35. Yup...and the "high-school high-jinks" at Abu Ghraib is certainly a "different p.o.v."...

...and one that I do not need to endorse by continuing to purchase the mag...

[Nye Bevan]

37. I can't even find "jinks". Let alone "high jinks".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS311US312&q=%22abu+ghraib%22+jinks+site%3Awww.economist.com&btnG=Search

[truebrit71]

40. It was in the physical magazine...

...

[Lost in CT]

44. Whats worse they allow letters with the sexist dear sir....

[Nye Bevan]

46. I believe the editor is male so "Dear Sir" is appropriate (nt)

[anigbrowl]

30. What are you talking about? They endorsed Obama - glowingly, at that

Yes, they're pro free trade - hardly a surprise, given their economic focus. right wing? Far from it. Maybe their dry wit is too subtle for you.

[truebrit71]

33. Yeah being a Brit I completely miss out on dry wit...

:eyes:

[anigbrowl]

42. So it seems.

[ramapo]

10. An excellent magazine

I've subscribed for about six years after I got fed up with Newsweek's pro-Bush suck-up slant. I had given up on Time some years before.

I really like The Economist. It has a more worldly perspective and has more depth than I can usually get through in a week. As you might expect, it has a mostly pro-business perspective but by no means is it an ideological publication.

On some issues it tilts right, some it tilts left. I enjoy having the different views presented. It keeps me intellectually honest.

Enjoy the free issues. The magazine does not come cheap but I feel it is worth every penny and it puts the US news magazines to shame.

[BurtWorm]

14. It's worth subscribing to--especially for free.

They tilt a bit to the right on economic issues. Sometimes maddeningly so. But they're not obnoxious about it, the way American conservatives are. You can take their leanings with a grain of salt. Their reportage is excellent, broad, deep. You'll feel smarter after leafing through the Economist.

[Alcibiades]

15. I've read it every now and again

They reprint the received orthodoxy on economics. As for their work on American politics--feh. They are Brits. They think they understand us, but they don't. Interesting to get a grasp on what center-right Brits imagine about the US. In this country, it's read by wingnuts who imagine themselves to be open-minded, but aren't. Good international reporting.

They think that they are all very smart, that they know, many words. All you need to know is that they gave Bush an endorsement in 2000. That should be all you need to know about how prescient and smart they really are.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=415334

"The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush. It prefers his small government, pro-market philosophy."

And how did that work out?

"And, on the simple test of the two crises, he wins on points: behind on a foreign crisis, but well ahead in a domestic one."

Funny, considering his presidency turned out to be all foreign policy, all the time. The major domestic challenges--energy, education, Katrina, the global economic crisis--these were all misplayed.

"The tenor of his presidency would depend crucially on Congress: to restrain the social illiberalism and occasional isolationism of other Republicans, the best outcome would be a divided one, with the Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives. Let’s see."

The Congress mattered not at all. Congress, when Republicans were in control, took their marching orders from Dick Cheney, and also when the Democrats were in control.

[distantearlywarning]

21. The other thing you need to know...

Is that they gave Kerry an endorsement in 2004 and Obama an endorsement in 2008. Prescient and smart? :shrug:

[Alcibiades]

48. No, stupid and short-sighted

The Obama endorsement should be easy. By then, even the blind could see the canyon the Republicans had led this country into.

The 2004 Kerry "endorsement" is just barely that:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3329802

The "endorsement" is qualified and nuanced:

"For Mr Bush's record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing."
Huh? Inspiring to whom? If it is inspiring to them, then they are insane or criminal or both.

"Invading Iraq was not a mistake."
Reeaally? In 2004, these morans could not tell that invading Iraq was a mistake?

"Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign."
Yep. They would appear to prefer the fellow who lunges headlong toward the cliff, rather than the one who considers the either/or.

"His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress."
Remember, these are Brits, with their national health care, who are sanguine about Kerry because they think his health care reform would fail, and that's OK by them.

"He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies."
Oh, deeper thought and consultation. That would have been so bad.

"Above all, though, they include the need to make a success of the rebuilding of Iraq, as the key part of a broader effort to stabilise, modernise and, yes, democratise the Middle East."
As if it were our job to do any of those things. In 2004, they are writing as if the US were still a functioning empire, responsible for sticking its fingers in the world's bidness.

"John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks."
IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE! Endorsing Kerry should have been a no-brainer, but these morans engaged in the same sort of vacillating of which they accused Kerry.

Similar crap, BTW, in their Obama endorsement: they don't think he will "stand up" to unions (where the real issue should be standing up FOR unions), they complain that "somehow" Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism," when this was evident to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear LONG, LONG before 2008. Their endorsement of Bush in 2000 brought into power the very forces they decried in 2008, but they did not have the brains to realize what the Republican Party is: the party of evangelicals, militarists and haters. If they had asked a progressive, they would have known better, but I don't think these folks know any.

[singingbiscuit]

16. Excellent writing

The staff actually bothers to check facts. They know how to think and write clearly.
Obviously, they have not all been reduced to scraping together a career out of blogs and half-baked guesses at what the popular mood is at the moment, something that has wrecked many a once-reputable magazine or newspaper.

[Sequoia]

17. You should get it.

[ogneopasno]

18. They are huge China apologists and frown on regulation. Having said that, I enjoy reading it because

their writing is excellent and even when I don't agree with them, their writing backs up their opinions in a way I find interesting. Their science reporting is also outstanding, and their surveys extremely useful. You could do worse than The Economist.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Highly recommended

Intelligent and very opinionated writing. Libertarian (they have been pro-gay marriage for many, many years) and economically conservative, but they are not apologists for anybody. Take a look at this devastating smackdown of the Republican party:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12599247

And ignore anyone who tells you it is a "Right-wing rag". They endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. It's a *fantastic* magazine.

I've found that I learn so much by reading it that I'd never have learned just from mainstream US and UK sources. I wouldn't consider it too far to the left or right. It allows for many points of view, but nothing too extreme in either direction.

[Greyhound]

27. Decent mag, but as the title would suggest is very pro-capitalism.

Gobs of information on what is going on in the world of finance, but always remember where they are coming from.

They are one of the last publications that does at least give a nod to balance.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. Good, indepth reporting that lean right, but certainly not freeperishly right.

It's a VERY GOOD magazine, with accurate and truthful reporting that's done with depth and nuance.

[anigbrowl]

29. Get it. you'll thank me later.

The fact that you can't tell whether they lean left or right is an indicator of quality: they generally approach every question from both sides. you won't always agree with what's written in the Economist, but it won't insult your intelligence like 90% of similar publications. I've been reading it for 10 years and have nothing bad to say about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Libertarian: economically right, socially leftish. Very well written indeed. Poor data presentation.

The economist is a moderate libertarian publication in essence, I think.

It's very, very heavily pro free markets, to the extent that its editorial stance is not merely that free markets are good, but that the most free-market approach to a situation is by definition the best one.

It's tentatively in favour of liberalising drug laws, gay rights and abortion rights; it supported and I think still supports the war in Iraq.

Its standards of factual reporting are generally quite high.

It has the best "house style" of any publication I know - it's very well written indeed.

On the other hand, it's data presentation is generally poor - it uses lots of graphs and charts, and they're often badly done.

[LeftishBrit]

36. It varies.

I'd say overall moderate conservative by Europaean standards, centrist by American standards. They've endorsed both Democratic and Republican candidates - they tend to support the non-incumbent party, and most recently supported Obama.

They are not too bad on news and general info. While I don't agree with all they say, they're certainly a cut above much of our press.

[jakefrep]

38. The obituary is always worth a read.

Overall, probably the best news magazine currently.

[Sabriel]

39. It's worth it just for the fascinating obits

And the rest of it's well done, too. I've learned quite a bit about world politics and economies since I started it two years ago. But I also consider its right-leaning, capitalist perspective as I read.

[ebay_bizzare]

41. you right

you right

[Posteritatis]

43. If it's free, then just take a look

Especially if there's no price tag attached, why would you filter for anything other than subjects that catch your interest?

[Generator]

45. I think that's the one about fly fishing

[applegrove]

47. You get a world prospective on the political economy of people outside the USA. Well worth it.

They'll develve into the history of things like MBA schooling in the USA. Necessary reading for anyone who wants to understand the trends in this world.